briantrumpet
Squire
Biden also gave Israel everything they wanted, and I think it's pretty safe to say that Epstein didn't have anything on Biden.
War with Russia
- Thread starter Milzy
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Biden also gave Israel everything they wanted, and I think it's pretty safe to say that Epstein didn't have anything on Biden.
C R
Guru
History has repeatedly shown that US foreign policy and doing the right thing very rarely go together, regardless of who is in power.
Pinno718
Veteran
But what has surfaced through this is the significance of APAC in both the Republican and Democratic parties.
briantrumpet
Squire
Given the US is basically greenlighting Russia's invasion and telling Ukraine to disarm to get a ceasefire (while handing over 20% of Ukraine to Russia), this is not an unreasonable question. The 'American treason' bit isn't even framed as a question, and that seems reasonable.
secretsqirrel
Well-Known Member
Agent Krasnov innit.
Ian H
Squire
In socio-geographical terms, handing the Russian-majority areas to Russia makes sense. The borders were drawn up for administrative convenience in Soviet times and were never intended to define autonomous nations. However, you can bet that Russia will simply use a peace agreement to continue the conflict by more devious, less costly means. Remember they were interfering in Ukrainian politics a long time before the current conflict started. The US has the power to seriously disadvantage Ukraine (e.g., they switched off or blocked satellite signals for a brief period), including witholding weapons.
Or, to put it another way, there are no easy answers.
Or, to put it another way, there are no easy answers.
Pblakeney
Guru
Would Donnie surrender Alaska to guarantee peace with Russia? That is roughly what he expects from Ukraine.
Europe is either going to have to step up to the mark, or admit to being toothless. And then...
briantrumpet
Squire
I dare say that Ukraine might agree to moving borders in return for a ceasefire, despite it rewarding Russia's warmongering, but not if they also have to disarm at all, as that would just be inviting Putin to have another go from its new borders. I don't know what more Europe can do, but it seems to be dithering and offering platitudes instead of doing anything concrete.
Beebo
Guru
There really are no simple answers.
There is no appetite for a costly war in the UK or other major European countries. Can you imagine the uproar if taxes rise and cost of living goes up again to fund a war.
I fear that Ukraine are on their own now.
Russia are still estimated to be losing 700 men per day. How can this be sustainable? They must also want a way out.
Some sort of bodged peace agreement is how this has to end. But how do we stop further Russian aggression?
There is no appetite for a costly war in the UK or other major European countries. Can you imagine the uproar if taxes rise and cost of living goes up again to fund a war.
I fear that Ukraine are on their own now.
Russia are still estimated to be losing 700 men per day. How can this be sustainable? They must also want a way out.
Some sort of bodged peace agreement is how this has to end. But how do we stop further Russian aggression?
Pinno718
Veteran
A ceasefire or peace deal may save Pootin and may allow recovery and future aggression.
Bomb the f*ck out of them I say.
Blazing Saddles
Regular
If there is one thing that history should have taught us it’s that one can never appease a dictator with ambitions of territorial expansion.
Yet, here we are again….
Yet, here we are again….
Ian H
Squire
Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, said America’s proposed peace plan presented Ukraine with a choice between “losing dignity” or forfeiting American support. The Trump administration has reportedly threatened to withhold weapons and suspend intelligence sharing if Mr Zelensky does not agree to the deal. European leaders have criticised the proposal, which appears to demand big concessions from Ukraine including ceding territory to Russia
[The Economist]
RecordAceFromNew
Regular
There is no need for such complicated conspiracy theories / guesses - Occam's razor applies - this is just a simple win-win.
Since the US was never going to risk WW3 with Russia by providing Ukraine with seriously lethal weapons, and since Ukraine is running out of men and no country in the West is willing to field their own sons, Ukraine's position can only deteriorate. This inevitable, logical outcome has been predicted by people like Mearsheimer from day one, as I mentioned periodically throughout this thread. Because the winner always dictate the terms, the current terms are what Russia is prepared to accept now, but can get worse if refused - you could compare them with the terms Zellensky rejected following Boris' advice in early 2022.
From Trump's perspective, whether they are accepted by Ukraine or Europe is immaterial - if Ukraine and Europe capitulate and accept them, he can walk away and call himself a super duper deal/peace-maker, and if they don't accept it, he can blame them for being intransigent and still walk away, leaving them holding the can, while blaming them when situation inevitably gets worse - either way he wins by extricating the US from an unwinnable war. So does Russia. Hence win-win.
Europe is or course the big loser in this adventure, now saddled with a failed state, many millions of Ukrainian immigrants, expensive energy, sunken treasures and arsenals laid bare. But all this was more or less guaranteed from the moment Europe outsourced foreign policy to the US, ignored Russian red line, and facilitating / encouraging Ukraine's NATO membership - while Russia was unable to veto that membership at the negotiation table, they vetoed it on the battlefield.
Who is to blame? Easy - who are the idiots who did not advice / ensure Ukraine to remain neutral, but cheered Ukraine to join the wrong gang to fight an unwinnable war instead?
Pblakeney
Guru
The alternative is to concede to Putin. To embolden Putin. To invite him to march further.
The notion that he will agree to something this month and stick to it is ridiculous. Ukraine had that in 2014. How did that work out? Who is next?
Psamathe
Guru
My impression is the clause in the proposal limiting the size of Ukraine's military is a complete give away regarding Putin's future intent. He'll re-arm and march further into Ukraine. There is no way Ukraine is ever going to invade Russia so only possible reason to severly restrict Ukraine's military is to make Putin's Phase 3 easier.
